Christian Forums and Message Board

The command if it be viewed as such, is not to all men or humanity. It is specific to those who have already chosen to be of a certain denomination, who themselves have accepted that the person recommending it was a prophetess of God. Having been an active member of the denomination for many years, I can testify that most view the dietary guidlines as such, and not enforceable commandments. Many within being at many different levels of compliance without any oversight or church regulation and or enforcement regarding such. It is generally understood that all such is and only can be applied through personal conviction and conversion, and those few who attempt to push or coerce others regarding it are generally frowned upon. Again, the idea is optimal personal health of mind and body in enduring ever increasingly intense spiritual warfare, not subjugation to meaningless mandates.

I'm not going to refute what you are saying never being part of that denomination, even though having known some men who have worked for me for many years and can only judge by knowing them and their practice~base on what you have said I would agree with you.

God is not the author of meaningless mandates. Nor were the dietary or otherwise laws of the nation of Israel during the old covenant, as many apparently suppose today. If there was ever any leader who has always had real and very important purpose in everything they have ever commanded or recommended for their people, God is that leader. Those who continuously rage against the moral, ceremonial, civil, and dietary laws of old covenant Israel as legalistic arbitrary mandates have no understanding of God at all. They are casting the attributes of the self righteous and hypocritical scribes and pharisees of Jesus day upon God in doing so. God is not the author of self righteous, hypocritical, arbitrary commands. His commands, regulations, recommendations, and advice are always full of meaning, truth, and wisdom. They have real purpose, substance, and effect. Those who deny or denounce them do so to their own detriment.

Amo, I read this a few times to make sure I'm hearing you correctly, and here is my problem with your statement and also, when others I have known from the SDA denomination: Even though you would admit the dietary laws given to Israel are not blinding on NT saints, yet in your heart, you truly believe that they SHOULD BE based on what you are saying in this quote. Let me explain why I'm saying this.

You said:

God is not the author of meaningless mandates. Nor were the dietary or otherwise laws of the nation of Israel during the old covenant, as many apparently suppose today.

No, we do not believe they were meaningless mandates as far as the spiritual lesson behind some of those dietary laws. God has already spoken considering what man can eat from the beginning and that has never changed as far as what can defile a person INWARDLY, or what even harm his body when eaten.

Gensis 9:3,4~Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat."

Very plain, no one should have any problem hearing those words with understanding and in light of the dietary laws of Israel with such scriptures as Acts chapter ten.

Acts 10:9-17~"On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,"

God made a "meat buffet bar for Peter to eat"~which Peter a Jew was NOT allowed to eat, but now UNDER THE NT he was, and not only was he allowed but God encouraged him to do so, as a matter of fact, the ONLY food God put before Peter to eat~the SAME GOD who you said is not the author of meaningless mandates. and neither was his dietary law to Israel. God providing this buffet bar for Peter to eat from proves all the dietary laws were ONLY given for spiritual lessons to Israel to heed. God determine certain animals to be clean or unclean by a method he chose to teach Israel they were NOT to follow the Gentiles in the manner of the way they chose to live their life, including even their eating habits, EVEN THOUGH WITHIN ITSELF was not an act of SPIRITUAL UNCLEANNESS! Once God broke down the wall of partition between Israel and other nations, he also no longer forbids his people not to eat this or that, for those OT laws were shadows and types of great spiritual lesson unfolded in the NT. Many other such laws fall under this as well.

Those who continuously rage against the moral, ceremonial, civil, and dietary laws of old covenant Israel as legalistic arbitrary mandates have no understanding of God at all. They are casting the attributes of the self righteous and hypocritical scribes and pharisees of Jesus day upon God in doing so.

Not raging my friend, but understanding WHY God gave such laws. Bring up any of them, and there is spiritual truth as to WHY any laws were given.

God is not the author of self righteous, hypocritical, arbitrary commands. His commands, regulations, recommendations, and advice are always full of meaning, truth, and wisdom.

Agree~yet, men are self-righteous and hypocritical in JUDGING other men's LIBERTY in Christ Jesus, base on what they think is the means to inherit eternal life, which to many are summed up in THIS DO and LIVE, sin and DIE!

They have real purpose, substance, and effect. Those who deny or denounce them do so to their own detriment.

Amo, dear sir, this almost goes against what you said here:

Having been an active member of the denomination for many years, I can testify that most view the dietary guidlines as such, and not enforceable commandments. Many within being at many different levels of compliance without any oversight or church regulation and or enforcement regarding such. It is generally understood that all such is and only can be applied through personal conviction and conversion, and those few who attempt to push or coerce others regarding it are generally frowned upon. Again, the idea is optimal personal health of mind and body in enduring ever increasingly intense spiritual warfare, not subjugation to meaningless mandates.

Maybe you can help us out to better understand what you truly believe.

Just one more call among the many from Rome, to establish their chosen day of worship upon all. Thanks for sharing that. I was going through and addressing the Encyclical Laudato Si' in the Roman politics thread here, and the Green Deal thread in the Christian politics forum. I have intended to get back to it, but there is so much going on so fast nowadays, it is hard to keep up.

Well, lets see if this is now in play after the new administration puts its 'climate change' agenda out there.

3 Resurrections:

   "A spiritual body is still a certain type of body form  (a 'soma') - not a spirit."

    True, not just a spirit. A spiritual body is non-physical, non-carnal, and non-sensual. A spiritual body is a transformed glorified body, "like our Lord's glorious body" [Phil. 3:20]. It is celestial as opposed to terrestrial. 

Buff

A spiritual body is still a certain type of body form  (a “soma”) - not a spirit. 

I think labor unions were once good but now a total wreck in my opinion. When I was younger in the 80s I was an estimator/project manager for a construction subcontractor. Our workers belonged to the Asbestos Workers union. Our company had been union for 30 years and pretty successful. In my 3rd year there, the owners decided to go non-union because we were losing market share right and left. The union workers set up a picket line just off our office’s property and everytime I or anyone else left the office they would follow us on motor cycles with a couple of their ruffians to harass us. A couple of them caught me on a jobsite and threatened to unscrew my arms and beat me senseless with the bloody stumps. I said  come on like a dummy. Fortunately one of our non-union guys on that job was bigger than both of them. The irony of all this was I knew and the union workers knew they could outwork the non-union guys butts off to the extent that tge union guys per unit labor cost could well compete IF they wanted to. They didn’t want to and as a result they basically ceased to exist in that area until this day. As a result I have much disdain for unions.